PA-Gov: McCord Releases Chilling Negative Ad Against Wolf

Written by Brittany Foster, Managing Editor

Rob McCord released a new ad hammering the relationship between Tom Wolf and “admitted racist” York Mayor of 1969, Charlie Robertson.

“[Wolf] spent millions on tv ads but now serious questions Tom Wolf can’t answer,” a woman’s voice reads. “Why would he chair the campaign of a man arrested for his role in a race riot, one that left a black woman dead? Why would wolf stand by an admitted racist charged with first degree murder, one who shouted white power and handed out ammunition at a race riot?”

“For York, Pennsylvania, it was an ugly episode,” the voice concludes. “For Tom Wolf, there’s just no good answer.”

Robertson was found not guilty in that charge of first degree murder, and Wolf has stated that his role on Robertson’s campaign was more of an emeritus position than an active role in his election.

It’s also interesting that McCord begins the ad pointing out that Wolf spent millions on television advertising, when he, too, contributed nearly $2 million to his own campaign. Wolf, of course, contributed $10 million, just under half of which came from a personal loan.

Is this tactic related to Senator Toomey’s despicable approach to defeating Debo Adegbile–guilt by association? It worked then. Will it work again? I think my approach will be to presume every political ad, positive or negative, is inaccurate. The only way to learn about a candidate is to read the news. Even that can’t be trusted but I have to start somewhere.

Corbett already has his own history of furthering racial discrimination in his job and public policy: VoterID law which was designed to disenfranchise black voters or the sting operation against black legislators.

If Wolf already had a history of negative racial behavior or supported discriminatory policies, then
1) the attack McCord’s making “might” have some basis
2) but then, that basis should have been the focus of the attack, rather than the non-issue of the current attack.

Rob’s trying to take a non-issue and make it the basis.

You can try to spin it all you want with false equivalence, but the problem here is the smear nature of Rob’s attack and blatant use of racial issues in a misleading fashion.